[tdb]

Hi!
I'm looking at two Tamron lenses which look similar to me:

1) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro
2) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro

Both are priced similarly low at B&H. Can somebody tell me the difference between those two? I'm looking for a cheap long lens with macro to carry around for my K10D.

Thanks!!!

[shutterpuppy]

Hi!
I'm looking at two Tamron lenses which look similar to me:

1) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro
2) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro

Both are priced similarly low at B&H. Can somebody tell me the difference between those two? I'm looking for a cheap long lens with macro to carry around for my K10D.

Thanks!!!

Hey all, Still learning my K100D and I'm looking for an extra lens that is lightweight that could be used as my standard everyday lens but could also be used to get great close ups at the zoo from a distance, maybe a moon shot or two and perhaps shoot macro shots of a bee on flower from a safe distance, will the Pentax,Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm deliver this wish to me?

Barry

[ixc]

I had been looking @ these as well awhile back and although I havent purchased yet DI is similar to APO in the sigma lenses. This basically means that it is designed for DSLR to reduce vignetting.

[SupremeMoFo]

I had been looking @ these as well awhile back and although I havent purchased yet DI is similar to APO in the sigma lenses. This basically means that it is designed for DSLR to reduce vignetting.

Nope, that's not it. The APO in the Sigma naming system refers to the use of low dispersion glass elements which reduce coloured aberrations (rings of purple, green around the edges of objects which shouldn't be there).

The Di designation of the Tamron lenses means it can be used with film OR digital, but has coatings on the glass which minimise the effect of reflections off the image sensor, which are higher than that of film.

The Di II designation of the Tamron lenses means it's only suitable for use with APS-C digital SLRs - those with a 1.5x crop ratio.

Go the 70-300 Di.

[Geekybiker]

Hi!
I'm looking at two Tamron lenses which look similar to me:

1) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro
2) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro

Both are priced similarly low at B&H. Can somebody tell me the difference between those two? I'm looking for a cheap long lens with macro to carry around for my K10D.

Thanks!!!

IIRC the 70-300 has better reviews than the 75-300.

[Miserere]

Hey all, Still learning my K100D and I'm looking for an extra lens that is lightweight that could be used as my standard everyday lens but could also be used to get great close ups at the zoo from a distance, maybe a moon shot or two and perhaps shoot macro shots of a bee on flower from a safe distance, will the Pentax,Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm deliver this wish to me?

Barry,

I have the SIgma APO 70-300mm and use it a lot. Macro is quite decent at 1:2, but do realise that at 300mm and that magnification there's going to be a lot of shaking. The Tamron should deliver similar results. As for the Pentax DA 55-300mm, it's not available yet and I don't know if it's going to have macro capability, but I suspect it won't. It will also cost more than the Sigma or Tamron. The only thing I see going for the Pentax is those extra 15mm at the short end.

[shutterpuppy]

Barry,

I have the SIgma APO 70-300mm and use it a lot. Macro is quite decent at 1:2, but do realise that at 300mm and that magnification there's going to be a lot of shaking. The Tamron should deliver similar results. As for the Pentax DA 55-300mm, it's not available yet and I don't know if it's going to have macro capability, but I suspect it won't. It will also cost more than the Sigma or Tamron. The only thing I see going for the Pentax is those extra 15mm at the short end.

Hopefully the shake reduction the K100D has will help any "shakiness" I might encounter especially at higher shutter speeds, I'm leaning towards the Sigma 70-300. Will the auto focus work on an older 2x tele-converter with that lens?

[Miserere]

Will the auto focus work on an older 2x tele-converter with that lens?

Does the TC have the AF screw? Even so, I wouldn't count on the AF working.

[2many]

I dont think you want to go higher than 1.4X or 1.5X on a teleconverter, You will loose too much with that lens. Find a decent AF TC and it will work just fine. The Sigma 1.4X TC will not work the the sigma 70-300mm The Tamron 1.4X if you can find one works great.

[moxfyre]

Hi!
I'm looking at two Tamron lenses which look similar to me:

1) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro
2) Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro

Both are priced similarly low at B&H. Can somebody tell me the difference between those two? I'm looking for a cheap long lens with macro to carry around for my K10D.

Thanks!!!

The non-Di version is an older design not optimized for digital SLRs. From what I've heard, differences are minor, but the Di may offer better contrast. And it's only $130 from Buydig.com (where I got mine), which is barely more than what you would pay for the older one.

I'd go for the Di. It's a well-built lens with good-to-very-good IQ at an excellent price.

[shutterpuppy]

I just got my Sigma 75-300mm from Amazon for less than $132.00 and I couldn't be happier. Love it's DOF. I was going to get the Tamron but heard Sigmas were better.

Barry

[moxfyre]

I was going to get the Tamron but heard Sigmas were better.

Nice photo! Ah, the debate rages on

Some say the Sigma is unacceptably soft at 300mm, some say the Tamron is unacceptably PF-y at 300mm. Very few people own both and have tested them, and when they do someone will always claim that one or the other is a bad sample Or that lighting conditions, exposure settings, or leprechaun attacks make the test flawed.

The only thing that is certain to me: the Tamron is cheaper ($130 vs. $200). I believe there's a consensus, more or less, that the Tamron is better-built as well.

[shutterpuppy]

Nice photo! Ah, the debate rages on

Some say the Sigma is unacceptably soft at 300mm, some say the Tamron is unacceptably PF-y at 300mm. Very few people own both and have tested them, and when they do someone will always claim that one or the other is a bad sample Or that lighting conditions, exposure settings, or leprechaun attacks make the test flawed.

The only thing that is certain to me: the Tamron is cheaper ($130 vs. $200). I believe there's a consensus, more or less, that the Tamron is better-built as well.

Softness at the end of the zoom doesn't bother me, I can always correct that in PP, I'm just hoping that "shake reduction" does it's job there at the end of the 300mm point... need to do more testing.

Barry

[moxfyre]

Softness at the end of the zoom doesn't bother me, I can always correct that in PP, I'm just hoping that "shake reduction" does it's job there at the end of the 300mm point... need to do more testing.

Barry

Say what? You can correct a soft APPEARANCE (sometimes), but you can't actually recover the lost information.

Soft means less resolution, less MTF, less actual meaningful information content in the picture. If a 300mm lens were sufficiently soft, it means you would get better real, optical resolution by taking a sharp 200mm lens and cropping down the image. So, for example, if you take a picture of a small bird that only covers a 1000x1000 area of the sensor, but the lens is very soft... there's no way to recover the lost detail in PP.

CA/PF also means lost information... but it tends to be isolated to certain contrasty edges, whereas softness often affects a large portion of the image, or the whole thing.

As for shake reduction: the K10D's shake reduction does a good job at 300mm. I usually get about 2-3 stops, I can almost always get a sharp handheld 1/100s exposure, often 1/50s.

[shutterpuppy]

Say what? You can correct a soft APPEARANCE (sometimes), but you can't actually recover the lost information.

Soft means less resolution, less MTF, less actual meaningful information content in the picture. If a 300mm lens were sufficiently soft, it means you would get better real, optical resolution by taking a sharp 200mm lens and cropping down the image. So, for example, if you take a picture of a small bird that only covers a 1000x1000 area of the sensor, but the lens is very soft... there's no way to recover the lost detail in PP.

CA/PF also means lost information... but it tends to be isolated to certain contrasty edges, whereas softness often affects a large portion of the image, or the whole thing.

As for shake reduction: the K10D's shake reduction does a good job at 300mm. I usually get about 2-3 stops, I can almost always get a sharp handheld 1/100s exposure, often 1/50s.

Sorry, I'm still new playing in the DSLR ballpark, having bridgecams for the last year, I've been used to PP almost everything. I do like lots of contrast and vivid colors in my pics but with faces, it can't be too harsh. So many things to learn, so little time. but I'll find time, reminds me of switching from an Instamatic growing up and advancing to a 35mm Spotmatic F. my life was never the same.

Barry